Disney forbidding dist of film

[cmehling]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901

 

[Bob O]

Of course the truth does come out regarding the rantings of moore, more pablum of the type found in his so-called documentaries that he is unwilling to pay for out of his own sizeable wallet!!!





Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
07 May 2004


Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001.

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His last documentary, Bowling for Columbine , made for $3m (£1.7m), pulled in $22m at the US box office.

But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working. A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression.

Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution.

> 7 May 2004 13:30

 

[Captain Crook]

Bob, is Moore's publicity stunt anymore despicable than (your new hero Mel's) use of his anti-semite father just before Passion's release?

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Bob O
Of course the truth does come out regarding the rantings of moore, more pablum of the type found in his so-called documentaries that he is unwilling to pay for out of his own sizeable wallet!!!

I've agreed earlier that this is only a publicity stunt, but I am completely stumped about the relevance of the comment that Moore doesn't use his own money to finance his movies.

Leaving aside the fact that he certainly did use his own meager resources when making Roger & Me, why does that matter? Why shouldn't he capitalize on the success of Roger & Me and leverage his opportunities with investors' money?

How is Moore any less of a self-made man than Mel Gibson, who got the multi-millions (many more than Moore has) to produce The Passion from various movie studios as an actor?

 

[rwodonnell]

I don't know that anyone is saying Moore is not a self-made man. If someone calls your wallet "fat", to me that's a good thing! I want a fatter wallet! (Well, unless it's all those receipts sticking out all over and those stupid shopping cards, and...)

The problem I have with Moore boils down I guess to one thing: he plays fast and loose with the truth (witness this whole incident) and that's a bit of a problem when you are supposedly making "documentaries".

 

[Captain Crook]

rw, have you actually seen his films and are making this call? (note: this is an honest question).

Because I've talked with many folks who claim they know what they're talking about and yet have never seen 'Roger & Me' or (the absolutely great) 'Bowling For Columbine.' Don't get me wrong, his presentation is biased (it's his point after all) but that doesn't make it invalid or somehow less legitimate.

On topic, I think Disney shouldn't be involved in this controversial of flick nor a flick like 'Passion OF The Christ' should they have had that chance, but they should honor their agreement with the Weinsteins or sever the relationship...You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
... but they should honor their agreement with the Weinsteins or sever the relationship...You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Which brings up a good point. What IS the agreement with the Weinsteins? All we've heard is what Michael Moore has said, and I'm thinking that's not necessarily the whole story. Even Miramax reps have said that the studio never had plans to release it due to Disney's objections, but had hoped to "bring them around" once the film was completed. If it truly were a contractual thing -- where Miramax could legally claim breach of contract if Disney didn't allow them to distribute the film -- why is Miramax not going that route? If they so badly want to distribute it, and they have a contract that says they can, then why is MIRAMAX not fighting harder?

I'm thinking there's got to be a lot more to that "what not to distribute" section.

 

[rwodonnell]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
rw, have you actually seen his films and are making this call? (note: this is an honest question).

I've seen Roger & Me.

Don't get me wrong, his presentation is biased (it's his point after all) but that doesn't make it invalid or somehow less legitimate.

It does, however, make it NOT a documentary. From the dictionary, the definition of a documentary:
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Clearly the second definition (which is the one regarding a film) is violated with his editorializing. Frankly, so are most documentaries, but his editorializing is, in my opinion, over the top.

Regarding Disney's agreement, I don't know that any of us know the details enough to comment intelligently on that. (Of course it hasn't stopped some of us from commenting in ways other than that anyway.)

 

[Captain Crook]

Thanks for the answers rw, I really disagree with little of what you say except for your take on Moore's content...I find it biased or colored but still factual...Obviously you disagree but as this isn't the debate board and this subject isn't really Disney related we need not discuss it further...

I don't know the situation between Disney & Miramax but I was assuming that Miramax had a free reign...But obviously I was wrong.

 

[WDWHound]

Beleive it or not, This was all a stunt by Micheal Moore to get publicity. He has known for a year that Disney would not distibute the film.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3565069&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

And for those who say Disney should honor their contract with Moore, Disney claims there was never a contract to distribute the film.

"Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution."

Since Moore lied about when he found out that Disney wont distribute the film, it wouldn't suprise me to find that he was lying about the contract as well.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by rwodonnell
...his editorializing is, in my opinion, over the top.

I have less of a problem with Michael Moore's style, where his film is clearly stating his point of view and can be judged accordingly, than with other documentaries which don't reveal their leanings and portray their presentations as purely factual.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by rwodonnell
From the dictionary, the definition of a documentary:
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Well, by whatever definition the film industry uses (or at least the Academy), it's a documentary.

 

[MDDisneyFan]

to answer lebjwb


__________________

"One more note. . . . . What was reported in the New York Times was that Moore's Agent was saying that Disney was concerned about Florida tax breaks. No one at Disney made that comment.'

Glad to see that you were there during the above conversation...please enlighten us further.

__________________

I never claimed to be there during the conversation. If you notice I said that was what the New York Times had reported. I was simply trying to clarify some comments on this thread in that the fact was that what was being reported was being credited to Moore's agent and not to Disney. Perhaps I am mistaken, but if we are having a discussion on a topic the basis of the discussion is understanding how the facts are being related. This is important if Disney is being slammed for a statement that is purported coming from Moore's camp.

 

[Phoebesaturn]

Originally posted by DancingBear
Well, by whatever definition the film industry uses (or at least the Academy), it's a documentary.

Too bad none of the great people in the "Academy" were every privy to the real facts and not the ones that Moore puts in his films. There are dozens of sites on the Internet the outline all of the lies, half-truths and creative edits that Moore ( or Fat ******* as he is better known) puts in his films.

It's really ironic that a man that claims to be so against big businesses has in fact become a millionaire because of it. I guess that point is even lost in Moore's hypocritical mind.

 

[dcentity2000]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
Which brings up a good point. What IS the agreement with the Weinsteins?
...
Where Miramax could legally claim breach of contract if Disney didn't allow them to distribute the film -- why is Miramax not going that route?

I want to know this too. As far as I know:

A breach of contract occurs when one party's obligations are not fulfilled. Miramax may not be chosing to press charges (if there are any) due to legal costs outweighing any possible damages claim (you cannot GAIN from a breach of contract, you can only recouperate your MINIMAL LOSSES); they may also be lacking in good evidence (terms, conditions, clauses and so on in contracts need not be written down; they can be in another document or formed orally under certain conditions).

This is correct for UK law (and European Union) so I would assume that US law is identical or very similar.



Rich::

 

[Captain Crook]

phoebesaturn, I'm so happy you are so enlightend as to Michael Moore's inner knowledge but forgive me if I choose to believe what I've personally read and seen over what you claim as fact in some right wing fanatical internet ravings...After all, some folks actually still believe Rush Limbaugh has credibility, 'nuff said! ...

 

[Phoebesaturn]

Originally posted by Captain Crook
phoebesaturn, I'm so happy you are so enlightend as to Michael Moore's inner knowledge but forgive me if I choose to believe what I've personally read and seen over what you claim as fact in some right wing fanatical internet ravings...After all, some folks actually still believe Rush Limbaugh has credibility, 'nuff said! ...

For example...I guess you were at both of the different events where Heston was speaking and Moore later edited the audio and video together in order for Moore to prove his "point" or lies as they are....where it appears that Heston says something the he never said. That is the least of the crap he pulls in his movies that he tries to pass off as "facts" and "truths".

Or I guess you find it truthfull he he spliced together two differnt Bush ad campaigns ?


Or where Moore attmepts to link an yearly NRA meeting as some sort of meeting in celebration or a pro gun rally right after Columbine.


Or when Moore attempts to link the KKK with the NRA?

Or when Moore delibertly lies and tries the paint the thug that killed Kayla Rolland as some sort of honnor role student with no history of violence?

Or are you most proud of his lose use of figures and data...using different years and different studies which everone supports his current arugment?

Heck that is just the short list off the top of my head. Yeah you got a real Documentry on you hands there. Only to Moore who is most likley sitting in his home right now with a Tin Foil hat on waiting for the space ship to pick him up.

 

[wdwguide]

After digging through the many embarrasingly mindless posts that litter this thread (snap out of it people, this world does not just consist of "liberals", "conservatives" and "terrorists"), I am surprised nobody brought up the question of why Disney would continue to finance a film even after the decision was made not to release it. Why didn't they shut down the production and withdraw their funding right away if they were so concerned? What they did seems like an awfully inefficient use of resources to me (but then, Disney is particularly good at doing this, so this probably shouldn't surprise me).

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by wdwguide
After digging through the many embarrasingly mindless posts that litter this thread (snap out of it people, this world does not just consist of "liberals", "conservatives" and "terrorists"), I am surprised nobody brought up the question of why Disney would continue to finance a film even after the decision was made not to release it. Why didn't they shut down the production and withdraw their funding right away if they were so concerned? What they did seems like an awfully inefficient use of resources to me (but then, Disney is particularly good at doing this, so this probably shouldn't surprise me).

As I understand it, Miramax had the leeway under its arrangement with Disney to do the development deal without Disney's approval, and Disney's veto rights (whatever they are) apply only to distribution.

I'm fairly certain Miramax will make back its development dollars on this one.

 

[Bob O]

Of course the captain is wrong which is normal!!! Mel Gibson didnt use his father at all in regards to his movie, but those who wished to ruin his movie tryed to use his father to taint the movie, but of course the people saw thru this evil plan and made the movie the 7th biggest movie in US history which is unheard of for a religious/foreign language film!!!!! As for Rush L he has gotten over his medical/drug problems and is back and is better than ever!!! Of course if he was a leftist/liberal he would be celebrated for overcoming medical/drug problems but since he isnt a part of the liberal establishment he will be attacked.
As for moore he is a multi-millionaire who could use his own money for produce his propaganda but is unwilling to put his money where his beliefs are.
And yes disney had a chance to be involved in a truely great movie like The Passon of the Christ that moved people and also made money, but like most of their decisions they were wrong and gave us kill bill 2/lady killers/alamo which cost over a hundred million dollars plus more to make and made less than half of the Mel Gibson movie made, of couirse they will be dwarfed even more when the dvd releases come out and you add in other movie tie-ins.
wdwguide disney being involved in this made as much sense as the purchase of fox family/ovitz hiring/internet portal debacle, the bottom line is the current disney management is awful and this is just another example of a badly run company.